All hype in my opinion, and apparently the #2 committer of the project may agree.

He agrees that @neo4j is slower than a “normal vector db”.

“if you are not dealing with many documents, it works quite well”

“Neo4j might not be optimized for vector search, but that doesn't mean it can't do it.”

https://x.com/tb_tomaz/status/1646626362243919873?s=20

Direct link to the report.

https://sfconservancy.org/docs/kuhn_expert-report-in-neo4j_5...

Case about the “further restrictions” removal provision of the AGPLv3 continues after counterclaim filing

This post is several years old, but it shows what their prices were back when neo4j enterprise was available commercial or AGPL.

As soon as end users learned they were getting the same software either way, guess what they picked?

(This is my blog post - iGov Inc is just me)

https://blog.igovsol.com/2018/01/10/Neo4j-Commercial-Prices....

Yes they closed the enterprise source code.

They first tried adding the commons clause, then when that did not accomplish what they wanted, they closed the enterprise source code.

The kicker is that this was not because of behemoth like Amazon or Oracle, it was because of a single individual… (guess who?)

Good read to get a better picture:

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/30/neo4j-v-purethink...

Thanks for the link, interesting to read.

"The issue as to whether the clause can be removed is still pending" -- that was in Mars, is it still pending now in December?

My guess was that indeed it could have been you :-) (which it was) since I couldn't think of anyone else.

Annoying behavior by Neo4j, and also interesting that AGPL didn't work for them

I touched on the negative Glassdoor reviews in this thread. Do you see a common pattern/theme? https://twitter.com/jmsuhy/status/1600093327130431488?s=61&t...

Funny to see people talking about the case.

I thought it was interesting that the 9th circuit made so many mistakes that they had to append the ruling. The fact that they got the defendants wrong is quite strange to me. The Graph Foundation was not part of the case any longer. They joined the case but then settled. The injunction itself that

Neo4j was very sloppy when adding the commons clause into the AGPL. They literally added the commons clause to the AGPL, leaving in the preamble and all, and call it the ‘Sweden License’. (Virtual name)

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/neo4j/neo4j/3.4.18/enterpr...

This ‘sweden license’ literally states it is a ‘free, copyleft license.’

copyleft = opensource according to Philip Rathle, Vice President of Products at Neo4j Inc. (6-ER-1368 ¶¶ 10-11 of appeal except of records).

Therefore according to Neo4j - it is free and open source.

Neo4j says their 'Sweden License' (AGPL + Commons) is both open source and not open source at the same time.

I call this: 'Schrödinger's Sweden License'

Keep an eye on the case - it is now in the second phase of the case where everyone will learn about Neo4j’s behavior. It would make a good Netflix mini series.

There is a very bizarre story behind Neo4j Inc's behavior and what lead to them adding the commons clause to the enterprise AGPL license.

They seem to be ready to go closed source, which they should have just done in the first place instead of behaving like they did. Adding the commons clause is just the tip of the iceberg - there is a very entertaining story behind everything that is happening. A single person, not a huge corporation, is behind this.

I will write a blog post about what happened/is happening in the upcoming months - complete with supporting documents such as FOIA requests, etc.